The new FAQ and armor proficiency

[Iku Rex]

To get the conclusion that your are suggesting (that a weak figher can't wear armour) you would need there to be a rule that the class feature shares the prerequisites of the feat. But this is not a rule, and it is not implied by the rule that the class feature counts as the feat.

I say it is implied.

Consider the following (made up) rule: "The plate proficiency you gain from the paladin class counts as the Armor Proficiency (Plate) feat [so far I'm copying the words from p 52 using a specific example] ... for the purpose of having to meet the prerequisites for the Armor Proficiency (Plate) feat in order use it. "

Is that an absurd rule? No. The "for the purpose of" limitation is not unheard of in the rules. If there's no such limitation, the default assumption should be that the proficiency "counts as" the feat for all purposes, including having to meet the feat's prerequisites to use it.

Against my better judgement I'll try for an example.

Say your country requires you to have a special driver's license ("prerequisite") to drive a vehicle classified as a "truck". A law is then passed that says that your car "counts as" a truck. I say that you now need that special license to drive your car legally. You insist that since the law didn't spell out that the car counts as a truck for the purpose of driver's licenses, you just need a regular license. I don't think a judge would agree that you were "obviously" or "self-evidently" correct. He might agee that it could be more clear though.


Edit: And if I may push the example a little, if you wrote a letter to a government bureaucrat asking if you needed a special license to drive your car/truck, an answer explaining that you bought it legally and you now own it would be missing the point.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

You would disagree that the defenders in 4e are intended to wear the heaviest armor they can get their hands on? You think a Paladin in hide armor is going to be as effective as one in plate, or a fighter in scale? Paladin in hide vs. plate is going to have an AC at least 4 points lower, assuming they don't go weird and put points in Dex or Int (I'm assuming they have 12 in one of these already). That's getting hit by 20% more attacks, which basically means they will survive 80% as long as the plate Paladin, or less. Doesn't seem like a good thing to me.

If that's your opinion you're certainly entitled to it, but there's really no mechanical advantage for either of those classes to do so, or for them to be required to not wear heavy armor if they slip up with their starting ability scores.

That isn't what I said at all.

 

[hong]

There's an awful lot of point-missing in this thread.

To summarize: The question is if the rules for feats can be reasonably assumed to apply to class abilities that count as feats.

Specifically, if the rule that prevents you from using a feat you have if you don't meet the requirements applies to the "count as feats" class proficiencies.

What do _you_ think the answer is?

 

[Storm-Bringer]

What do _you_ think the answer is?

Postcount.

HAW HAW

 

[hong]

Crap, did I really make Stormbringer's head explode?

That wasn't supposed to happen for another month.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Crap, did I really make Stormbringer's head explode?

That wasn't supposed to happen for another month.

I just thought I would give you a break from posting for a while, so I set up a bot.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

Say your country requires you to have a special driver's license ("prerequisite") to drive a vehicle classified as a "truck". A law is then passed that says that your car "counts as" a truck. I say that you now need that special license to drive your car legally. You insist that since the law didn't spell out that the car counts as a truck for the purpose of driver's licenses, you just need a regular license. I don't think a judge would agree that you were "obviously" or "self-evidently" correct. He might agee that it could be more clear though.

Your example has some slight flaws. You need a special license to drive a truck - the license is the feat, the truck is the heavy armor. Now, you need a third level - you need to take a special course and pass it to get the license - that is your feat prereqs.

To model the class armor proficiencies: your country passes a law saying people from Southern Bigtown (fighters) get the special license for free without having to take the course - you gain the proficiency without having to spend a feat. Since you are from Southern Bigtown, once your shiny new license arrives, you start driving your new truck. Policeman pulls you over - the proper charge (or whatever) would be that you did not pass the course to get the special license. To which you point to the law and say "I'm from Southern Bigtown, I get it by default!" Policeman has to go away

Granted, I'm using the example to my advantage, but the only part that makes the example work my way is "... get the special license for free without having to take the course". In your version, it would probably be "... get the special license for free." In which case, you still get to say, "They gave it to me! It's not my fault! Blame the gov't." and requires the policeman to call in and get a check done to see if you've enrolled in and passed the course to get the special license before letting you go or ticketing you. Shouldn't the license be the proof of having the qualifications? In fact, isn't the license the qualifications itself?

 

[Lord Sessadore]

That isn't what I said at all.

You said:

I would say that if a successful game hinges on how the characters are equipped, there is something very wrong.

Well, if the game math is built to accommodate armor, either it is built to accommodate fighters in scale or fighters in hide. There's a 4 AC difference between the two - if it's built for scale and you restrict to hide unless they have the right scores, then they're getting slaughtered. If it's built for hide and they get scale for free, they're a lot harder to hit, and I have to wonder what the heck the designers were thinking giving a class armor proficiencies for free that they didn't intend for them to use.

The math has to have certain assumptions in order to work correctly - I believe one of those is that defenders wear heavy armor, period. It's just like how it's assumed that rogues and rangers are wielding weapons, not just punching people.

Might be ok if you water down encounters. But if you run the game as written, I think you'll want your fighters in heavy armor. If you think that's wrong, that's fine, but that would be the definition of the game "hinging on how the characters are equipped."

 

[Lord Sessadore]

That isn't what I said at all.

You said:

I would say that if a successful game hinges on how the characters are equipped, there is something very wrong.

Well, if the game math is built to accommodate armor, either it is built to accommodate fighters in scale or fighters in hide. There's a 4 AC difference between the two - if it's built for scale and you restrict to hide unless they have the right scores, then they're getting slaughtered. If it's built for hide and they get scale for free, they're a lot harder to hit, and I have to wonder what the heck the designers were thinking giving a class armor proficiencies for free that they didn't intend for them to use.

The math has to have certain assumptions in order to work correctly - I believe one of those is that defenders wear heavy armor, period. It's just like how it's assumed that rogues and rangers are wielding weapons, not just punching people.

Might be ok if you water down encounters. But if you run the game as written, I think you'll want your fighters in heavy armor. If you think that's wrong, that's fine, but that would be the definition of the game "hinging on how the characters are equipped."